Liz Truss Ex-Prime Minister
Discussion
MC Bodge said:
oilit said:
Here is the £1m question:-
Name me the last PM who you genuinely think/ believe wanted to make the country a better place…..rather than feather their own nests? ( I have asked about 10-20 friends and two names come up frequently)
I don't think that many PMs are quite as you are suggesting.Name me the last PM who you genuinely think/ believe wanted to make the country a better place…..rather than feather their own nests? ( I have asked about 10-20 friends and two names come up frequently)
"Feathering their own nest" suggests just doing it for the money post-PM or through favours . It's a tough, long-term task to win the job (even if apparent lightweights can now get there) and a fairly fraught way to go about earning cash in future years.
I think that most/all think they can change things for the better (their idea of "better" may vary), and most will have an inflated ego of sorts. Johnson was a bit of an outlier. Truss is, er,... I'm not sure, but few people have much positive to say about her.
Cameron I might exclude for being a self-serving t
t who shat out referendum after referendum, knowing full well he'd run away and leave someone else to clear up the mess if it didn't go the way he wanted. How much anger, division, chaos and confusion might have been avoided if he'd at least put forward a clear understanding of what leaving the EU actually meant, in terms of the EEA, single market, Northern Ireland and the GFA. But then he did the same thing for the Scottish Independence referendum. No clear understanding of what it would have actually meant in practical terms - like how do you split military assets, national debt, would borders be needed.... But those before Cameron, I'd give them all the benefit of believing they genuinely wanted the best for the country. Even Blair.
Rivenink said:
I'd agree with this.
Cameron I might exclude for being a self-serving tt who shat out referendum after referendum, knowing full well he'd run away and leave someone else to clear up the mess if it didn't go the way he wanted. How much anger, division, chaos and confusion might have been avoided if he'd at least put forward a clear understanding of what leaving the EU actually meant, in terms of the EEA, single market, Northern Ireland and the GFA. But then he did the same thing for the Scottish Independence referendum. No clear understanding of what it would have actually meant in practical terms - like how do you split military assets, national debt, would borders be needed....
But those before Cameron, I'd give them all the benefit of believing they genuinely wanted the best for the country. Even Blair.
Blair you must be joking have you got a short memory tell that to the family of Dr David Kelly Cameron I might exclude for being a self-serving t
t who shat out referendum after referendum, knowing full well he'd run away and leave someone else to clear up the mess if it didn't go the way he wanted. How much anger, division, chaos and confusion might have been avoided if he'd at least put forward a clear understanding of what leaving the EU actually meant, in terms of the EEA, single market, Northern Ireland and the GFA. But then he did the same thing for the Scottish Independence referendum. No clear understanding of what it would have actually meant in practical terms - like how do you split military assets, national debt, would borders be needed.... But those before Cameron, I'd give them all the benefit of believing they genuinely wanted the best for the country. Even Blair.
Daz68 said:
So we can keep on printing money and give out huge hand outs just to pass on with no financial hardship?
Effectively yes - we've been doing it for over 400 years and in that time have only taken on more and more 'debt'.There are limits, but they are very broad - much broader than the household budget/corner shop economics falsehoods would suggest.
The main limits are:
1) not creating too much money that isn't backed by economic activity and which can't be scavenged back out of the economy by taxes. Just going mad with the money printer to prop up an otherwise dysfunctional economy (e.g Argentina or Zimbabwe) will lead to rampant supply-driven inflation.
2) Maintaining your status as a safe investment (for people to deposit their money in your central bank) and a reliable creditor. This is related to point 1) but also means that when, as a nation, you take on actual loans (not long-term bonds or an overdraft with your own bank) you keep up the payments - this is what the UK did with our post-war loan from the USA and the 1970s loan from the IMF (the IMF one was paid back ahead of schedule, plus interest and the UK only took half the amount agreed). It also means that you don't devalue your currency too much on the international markets.
Basically, just don't go wild and maintain a functional economy under the spending. It's almost impossible for a nation with its own bank and currency to 'overspend' so long as the spending is done to maintain or increase economic growth. If so, production won't overrun money creation and the debt/GDP ratio will be kept in check. Such uses would include intervention to ensure that businesses aren't crippled by soaring energy bills that consumer spending doesn’t grind to a halt and that hundreds of thousands of people don't end up ill or dead.
sugerbear said:
The best bit is "She worked at Shell and Cable & Wireless". I could say I worked for Sainsbury PLC but it won't tell you I was part time, sixteen years of age and has absolutely zero impact on the company.
The rest is just politics, she went to Oxford (So did Cameron and Johnson), look how well that turned out.
She joined an opaque think tank, she had an affair with a high ranking tory and was then given a safe tory seat in true blue Norfolk.
She then did a copy and paste job on a number of trade agreements.
The question is what exactly has Liz Truss done that has added any value to the companies she works for? and what experience does she has to run a country. (Yup, pretty much zero).
How many newly elected leaders have experience of running a country?The rest is just politics, she went to Oxford (So did Cameron and Johnson), look how well that turned out.
She joined an opaque think tank, she had an affair with a high ranking tory and was then given a safe tory seat in true blue Norfolk.
She then did a copy and paste job on a number of trade agreements.
The question is what exactly has Liz Truss done that has added any value to the companies she works for? and what experience does she has to run a country. (Yup, pretty much zero).
Did Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown etc. etc. have any experience of running a country when they were elected for the first time?
cc3 said:
Rivenink said:
I'd agree with this.
Cameron I might exclude for being a self-serving tt who shat out referendum after referendum, knowing full well he'd run away and leave someone else to clear up the mess if it didn't go the way he wanted. How much anger, division, chaos and confusion might have been avoided if he'd at least put forward a clear understanding of what leaving the EU actually meant, in terms of the EEA, single market, Northern Ireland and the GFA. But then he did the same thing for the Scottish Independence referendum. No clear understanding of what it would have actually meant in practical terms - like how do you split military assets, national debt, would borders be needed....
But those before Cameron, I'd give them all the benefit of believing they genuinely wanted the best for the country. Even Blair.
Blair you must be joking have you got a short memory tell that to the family of Dr David Kelly Cameron I might exclude for being a self-serving t
t who shat out referendum after referendum, knowing full well he'd run away and leave someone else to clear up the mess if it didn't go the way he wanted. How much anger, division, chaos and confusion might have been avoided if he'd at least put forward a clear understanding of what leaving the EU actually meant, in terms of the EEA, single market, Northern Ireland and the GFA. But then he did the same thing for the Scottish Independence referendum. No clear understanding of what it would have actually meant in practical terms - like how do you split military assets, national debt, would borders be needed.... But those before Cameron, I'd give them all the benefit of believing they genuinely wanted the best for the country. Even Blair.
rover 623gsi said:
Might be better if he was a comedian but that would be unfair to the profession 
cc3 said:
Rivenink said:
I'd agree with this.
Cameron I might exclude for being a self-serving tt who shat out referendum after referendum, knowing full well he'd run away and leave someone else to clear up the mess if it didn't go the way he wanted. How much anger, division, chaos and confusion might have been avoided if he'd at least put forward a clear understanding of what leaving the EU actually meant, in terms of the EEA, single market, Northern Ireland and the GFA. But then he did the same thing for the Scottish Independence referendum. No clear understanding of what it would have actually meant in practical terms - like how do you split military assets, national debt, would borders be needed....
But those before Cameron, I'd give them all the benefit of believing they genuinely wanted the best for the country. Even Blair.
Blair you must be joking have you got a short memory tell that to the family of Dr David Kelly Cameron I might exclude for being a self-serving t
t who shat out referendum after referendum, knowing full well he'd run away and leave someone else to clear up the mess if it didn't go the way he wanted. How much anger, division, chaos and confusion might have been avoided if he'd at least put forward a clear understanding of what leaving the EU actually meant, in terms of the EEA, single market, Northern Ireland and the GFA. But then he did the same thing for the Scottish Independence referendum. No clear understanding of what it would have actually meant in practical terms - like how do you split military assets, national debt, would borders be needed.... But those before Cameron, I'd give them all the benefit of believing they genuinely wanted the best for the country. Even Blair.
2xChevrons said:
Daz68 said:
So we can keep on printing money and give out huge hand outs just to pass on with no financial hardship?
Effectively yes - we've been doing it for over 400 years and in that time have only taken on more and more 'debt'.There are limits, but they are very broad - much broader than the household budget/corner shop economics falsehoods would suggest.
The main limits are:
1) not creating too much money that isn't backed by economic activity and which can't be scavenged back out of the economy by taxes. Just going mad with the money printer to prop up an otherwise dysfunctional economy (e.g Argentina or Zimbabwe) will lead to rampant supply-driven inflation.
2) Maintaining your status as a safe investment (for people to deposit their money in your central bank) and a reliable creditor. This is related to point 1) but also means that when, as a nation, you take on actual loans (not long-term bonds or an overdraft with your own bank) you keep up the payments - this is what the UK did with our post-war loan from the USA and the 1970s loan from the IMF (the IMF one was paid back ahead of schedule, plus interest and the UK only took half the amount agreed). It also means that you don't devalue your currency too much on the international markets.
Basically, just don't go wild and maintain a functional economy under the spending. It's almost impossible for a nation with its own bank and currency to 'overspend' so long as the spending is done to maintain or increase economic growth. If so, production won't overrun money creation and the debt/GDP ratio will be kept in check. Such uses would include intervention to ensure that businesses aren't crippled by soaring energy bills that consumer spending doesn’t grind to a halt and that hundreds of thousands of people don't end up ill or dead.
Would you suggest that Governments who print money to give to private companies in exchange for vastly overpriced services would be at risk of causing 1)
Rivenink said:
With all respect to the late Dr Kelly and his family, I don't think his demise has much to do with the question of whether Blair sought the position of PM to better the country or feather his own cap. Regardless of the exact facts of how his death occured.
If you are the leader when a dodgy dossier is prepared to take us to war and a scientist ( weapons expert) dies in mysterious circumstances you are not bettering the U.K. cc3 said:
Rivenink said:
With all respect to the late Dr Kelly and his family, I don't think his demise has much to do with the question of whether Blair sought the position of PM to better the country or feather his own cap. Regardless of the exact facts of how his death occured.
If you are the leader when a dodgy dossier is prepared to take us to war and a scientist ( weapons expert) dies in mysterious circumstances you are not bettering the U.K. Rivenink said:
Ivan stewart said:
Looks good to me , I’m seeing lots of anger from the lefty contingent , we might just have a conservative as a PM ..
Mmmm, because if it had been Rishi 'married to a billionaire heiress' Sunak, 'the left' would have thrown a party. Edited by Rivenink on Monday 5th September 19:49
Ivan stewart said:
Rivenink said:
Ivan stewart said:
Looks good to me , I’m seeing lots of anger from the lefty contingent , we might just have a conservative as a PM ..
Mmmm, because if it had been Rishi 'married to a billionaire heiress' Sunak, 'the left' would have thrown a party. Edited by Rivenink on Monday 5th September 19:49
oilit said:
Al Gorithum said:
Oh good. 80k people (who think that Boris did a great job) has decided who is PM for the next 2 years.
She is an imbecile.
Boris was a national embarrassment, as was JRM.She is an imbecile.
Here is the £1m question:-
Name me the last PM who you genuinely think/ believe wanted to make the country a better place…..rather than feather their own nests? ( I have asked about 10-20 friends and two names come up frequently)
Ref LT - my expectations are at around level they were when BJ was elected, so I expect the same chaotic embarrassing bullsh*t
cc3 said:
Rivenink said:
The question wasn't about the results, it was about the intention. You're barking up the wrong tree. Stop wasting your time.
Since when did you become the person who says what I can say. Touch on a sensitive issue. Blair (I'm no fan) set out with a vision and good intentions as PM. The balance is a different story. He set out to change society positively in 1997.
Vasco said:
Let's see she delivers, delivers, delivers first (whatever it is, you might be carded and have to collect it from the sorting office with licence as ID) 
Priti Patel has quit and a few others have headed to the back benches, Truss will have a strong start like Arsenal, but fading later when real opposition turns up (cost of living, inflation, energy crisis, soaring crime etc)... she won't last the season 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff